COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ISLAMABAD VS CHAIRMAN, CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 2014 PTD-ISLAMABAD 2014 (2013)

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

---S. 194-C(3)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Customs Appellate Tribunal---Constitution of Bench---Objection---Non-inclusion of Member (Technical) from the nearest tribunal---Allegation of mala fides against Chairman, Customs Appellate Tribunal---Petitioner/Collector Customs contended that Chairman, Customs Appellate Tribunal had constituted a Bench without recording reasons for avoiding to include a Member (Technical) from nearest tribunal i.e. Peshawar and inducted a Member from farther part of the country i.e. Karachi; that Chairman had constituted the Bench in a hasty manner, which cast doubt upon his intentions---Validity---Perusal of record showed that through a written application, the petitioner (Collector of Customs) requested inclusion of a Member (Technical) in the Bench, which was allowed by the Chairman and the Bench was reconstituted by inducting Member (Technical)---Petitioner now again sought inclusion of a specific Member from Peshawar instead of Karachi---Such claim of petitioner did not find support from the law on the subject, as S. 194-C of Customs Act, 1969 empowered the Chairman to constitute Benches---None of the parties to a judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings could claim hearing by a Bench of his choice---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

(b) Discretion---

----Every authority vested with discretion was under an obligation to exercise the same transparently and judiciously.

(c) Administration of justice---

----Bench---Preference of litigant---None of the parties to a judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings could claim hearing by a Bench of his choice.

Rehan Seerat for Petitioner.

Babar Ali for Respondent No.1.

Muhammad Naeem Qazi for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, C.J.---Captioned petition and W.P. No.2508 of 2013 contain identical question, therefore, being decided by the single order.

Petitioner questions the order whereby respondent No.1 [learned Chairman Inland Appellate Tribunal] dismissed his application highlighting objection qua constitution of Bench without inclusion of Member (Technical) from Peshawar.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that constitution of the Bench was done with mala fide intentions, without recording reasons by avoiding to include Member (Technical) from nearest tribunal i.e. Peshawar and an inducing of member from a farther part of country i.e. Karachi, reflects the intention of Chairman to get decided the case as per his own choice.

It is next submitted that he has no trust in the respondent No.1, who has constituted the Bench in hasty manner without waiting for appointment of Member (Technical) Islamabad, which casts doubt upon the intention of respondent No.1.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that constitution of Benches was in adherence to codified procedure contained in section 194-C of Custom Act.

It is next submitted that petitioner is not entitled under any provision of law to seek constitution of bench or inclusion of a specific member of his choice. Learned Counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3 adopted the above arguments. In support of his contention learned counsel relied on case of Collector of Customs Model Collectorate of PACCs. v. Muzammil Ahmad (2009 PTD 266).

Heard and record perused.

Perusal of record reveals that previously through a written application, the petitioner required inclusion of Member (Technical) in the Bench which was allowed by the respondent No.1 and the Bench was reconstituted by inducting Member (Technical), however, he again preferred the application with the request for inclusion of a specific member from Peshawar instead of Karachi.

The claim of the petitioner does not find support from the law on the subject, as section 194-C of Customs Act, 1969 empowers the learned respondent No.1 to constitute the benches. It is settled law that every authority vested with discretion is under obligation to exercise the same transparently and judiciously but is also cannot be lost sight of that none of the parties to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings can claim hearing by bench of his choice.

In view of above, claim of the petitioner fails the legal scrutiny, therefore, petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.

MWA/48/ISLPetitions dismissed.